Group XI: General Provisions · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 81 defines the outer edge of the civil rules' reach, applying them to habeas corpus and quo warranto proceedings, subpoena enforcement, and arbitration only to the extent other law leaves a gap, abolishing the separate writs of scire facias and mandamus, and defining terms like "state law" and "federal statute" for the rules as a whole.
(4)Special Writs. These rules apply to proceedings for habeas corpus and for quo warranto to the extent that the practice in those proceedings:
(A)is not specified in applicable statutes or the Rules Governing Proceedings Under D.C. Code § 23-110; and
(B)has previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.
(5)Proceedings Involving a Subpoena. These rules apply to proceedings to compel testimony or the production of documents through a subpoena issued by an officer or agency of the United States or the District of Columbia under any applicable statute, except as otherwise provided by statute, by rule, or by court order in the proceedings.
(6)Other Proceedings. In proceedings relating to arbitration, these rules apply only to the extent that matters of procedure are not provided for in applicable statutes.
(b)SCIRE FACIAS AND MANDAMUS. The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.
(1)"State Law" Defined. When these rules refer to state law, the term "law" includes the state's statutes and the state's judicial decisions.
(2)“State” Defined. The term “state” includes, where appropriate, the District of Columbia and any United States commonwealth or territory.
(3)“Federal Statute” Defined. The term “federal statute” encompasses any Act of Congress, including one that applies locally to the District of Columbia.
This rule is similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81, as amended in 2007 and 2009, but maintains the following local distinctions: 1) subsections (a)(1)-(3) have been omitted or deleted; 2) subsections (a)(4)-(6) have been amended to reference the District of Columbia and its local rules; 3) section (c) has been omitted; and 4) language in subsection (d)(3) has been adapted for the Superior Court rules.
Comment:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81 has been modified considerably because of differences in the jurisdictions of the Superior Court and the United States District Courts. Section (a) describing the proceedings to which these Rules are applicable has been extensively revised.
Subsection (a)(1) relating to prize proceedings in admiralty, bankruptcy, copyright, and District of Columbia mental health proceedings has been deleted. The Rules governing mental health proceedings are found in the Superior Court Rules of Procedure for Mental Health.
Subsection (a)(2) is identical to the Federal Rule counterpart except that "applicable statutes" has been substituted for "statutes of the United States" and the reference to citizenship admissions has been deleted.
Subsection (a)(3) has been modified to reflect appropriate applicability to arbitration cases, but the inapplicable reference to Title 9, U.S.C. (governing cases in the courts of the United States arising out of disputes over arbitration agreements) has been deleted. Also deleted from the Federal Rule is reference to 45 U.S.C. § 159 which deals with railway labor cases in the United States District Courts. In conformity with these modifications, "those statutes" has been changed to "applicable statutes" in the 1st sentence of (a)(3). The 2nd sentence of subsection (a)(3) has been revised to comprehend all proceedings to compel whether based on a subpoena issued by a United States officer or agency or a District of Columbia officer or agency.
Subsection (a)(4) dealing with federal District Court review of orders of the Secretary of Agriculture, orders of the Secretary of the Interior, and orders of petroleum control boards is deleted.
Subsection (a)(5) dealing with proceedings in the federal District Courts for enforcement of National Labor Relations Board orders is deleted.
Subsection (a)(6) dealing with District Court proceedings under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers Compensation Act and provisions relative to cancellation of citizenship certificates is deleted.
Subsection (a)(7) of the Federal Rule has been abrogated and is thus left vacant in these Rules.
Section (b) of this rule is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b). Section (c) of the Federal Rule dealing with the procedure in cases that have been removed from state courts to United States District Courts is thus inappropriate material for inclusion in Superior Court Rules and has been deleted. Section (d) of the Federal Rule has been abrogated and that section is thus left vacant in these Rules. Section (e) has been modified slightly in order to be appropriate for use in this Court. The 1st sentence of the Federal Rule section prescribes a principle of applicability for cases in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and is thus deleted. (That applicability is, of course, properly secured by Rule 81 (e) of the Federal Rules as followed in the U.S. District Court for this District and is not affected by Rule 81 of the Superior Court.)The inclusive provision with respect to "statute of the United States" in the 2nd [3rd] sentence of the Federal Rule is made applicable to proceedings in the Superior Court by deletion of the phrase "so far as concerns proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia". Section (f) is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(f).
Plain-English Summary
Not every kind of proceeding in Superior Court runs entirely on the civil rules, and Rule 81(a) marks out where they fill gaps rather than control outright. For habeas corpus and quo warranto proceedings, the civil rules apply only where the practice is not already covered by applicable statutes or the Rules Governing Proceedings Under D.C. Code § 23-110, and only where that practice has historically followed ordinary civil action procedure. For proceedings to enforce a subpoena issued by a federal or District of Columbia officer or agency, the civil rules apply except where a statute, rule, or court order in that proceeding says otherwise. And in arbitration matters, the civil rules step in only where the applicable arbitration statutes leave a procedural question unanswered.
Rule 81(b) abolishes two old common-law writs outright — scire facias and mandamus — but preserves whatever relief they used to provide, which a party can now pursue through an ordinary action or motion under the civil rules instead. There is no need to invoke an old writ by name; the underlying remedy survives, just repackaged into modern procedure.
Rule 81(d) closes out the rule with definitions that matter across the entire body of civil rules. "State law" means both a state's statutes and its judicial decisions. "State" includes the District of Columbia itself and any United States commonwealth or territory, not just the fifty states. And "federal statute" reaches any Act of Congress, including one that applies specifically and only to the District of Columbia. Several other subsections of the federal counterpart to this rule do not appear here at all, reflecting how much Superior Court practice differs from federal district court practice on questions like removal from state court, which has no equivalent in a purely local court system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do the civil rules apply in full to habeas corpus proceedings?
Only partially. Rule 81(a)(4) applies the civil rules to habeas corpus and quo warranto proceedings only to the extent the practice is not already addressed by applicable statutes or the Rules Governing Proceedings Under D.C. Code § 23-110, and only where that practice has historically tracked ordinary civil action procedure.
What happened to the writs of mandamus and scire facias in DC Superior Court?
Rule 81(b) abolishes both writs by name, but the relief they used to provide is not lost — a party can obtain that same relief through an appropriate action or motion under the civil rules.
Do the civil rules govern a proceeding to enforce a subpoena from a government agency?
Generally yes. Rule 81(a)(5) applies the civil rules to proceedings to compel testimony or documents through a subpoena issued by a United States or District of Columbia officer or agency, except where a statute, rule, or court order in that proceeding provides otherwise.
Do the civil rules control arbitration proceedings in Superior Court?
Only where the applicable arbitration statutes are silent. Rule 81(a)(6) applies the civil rules to arbitration-related proceedings only to the extent procedural matters are not already provided for in those statutes.
What does "state law" mean when the civil rules use that term?
Rule 81(d)(1) defines "state law" to include both a state's statutes and its judicial decisions, and Rule 81(d)(2) clarifies that "state" itself includes the District of Columbia and any United States commonwealth or territory.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:do civil rules apply to habeas corpus dcmandamus abolished dc superior courtsubpoena enforcement proceeding dc civil rulesarbitration procedure dc superior court rulesdefinition of state law dc civil rules